Been awhile since I've started a thread here. Perhaps a day. I saw the movie today, and I must say that It was far better than I expected. I've read the Hobbit, but none of the books in the actual LoTR trilogy, so I came in without too many...assumptions, I guess. Anyway, the CGI effects were outstanding, the actors were good, and I'm still stumped about how they got those actors hobbit-sized.

Anyone care to comment? There's gotta be at least one Tolkien fanatic out there.

Most of it was actually just trick-camera effects, with large chairs and far away shots. They did a wonderful job with that. Everything did a wonderful job, it's made many critics top ten movies of all time lists, and I think it just might squeeze its way onto mine.

Originally posted by Jester Most of it was actually just trick-camera effects, with large chairs and far away shots. They did a wonderful job with that. Everything did a wonderful job, it's made many critics top ten movies of all time lists, and I think it just might squeeze its way onto mine.

im not convinced it will make many critics top ten films. Like Star Wars, such escapism rarely makes an impact on the critics.

Madness is rare in individuals--but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule - Nietzsche

Originally posted by duder
im not convinced it will make many critics top ten films. Like Star Wars, such escapism rarely makes an impact on the critics.

Funny you should use that term to describe LoTR. I recently saw a tv biography (okay, I admit it, I watch public television, but I'm not the only one!) of Tolkein in which he was quoted as being bitterly against his novels being labelled as escapist in nature. He said something to the effect of escapism having to do with writing books about worlds that are better than that of the one we live in, whereas the world of Middle Earth had vile places, far worse than any place on earth. I guess Star Wars couldn't be labelled as escapism in his eyes, either, since you had places like Tatooine. I can't remember the substitute term that Tolkein had derived for his brand of fantasy, but it was something that was nearly the opposite of escapism.

Another thing he was against was people calling his books allegorical, putting them in the same league as Lord of the Flies. Sure the books have deeper meaning, but he was not writing the characters as if they represented concrete aspects of our society and could be labelled in that fashion.

I only brought all that stuff up to fuel discussion; it was not my intention to stomp on your post .

thats fine mate ... but still my comment stands. Lets say the issues he is concerned in are greed, industrialisation, power, human condition etc. These are hardly profound issues, yes they come across in the story, but in all honesty, we have all seen the same in many other stories. The beauty of the book and film, IMO, is the detail of the world and characters involved, in other words the escapist element!

Madness is rare in individuals--but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule - Nietzsche

tell me how did you feel when you came out after the film? had the film made you think or question, or did make you feel good? The reason why I refer to it as escapism is because it felt like I had been transported to another world for 3 hours, and after the film I got a real rush from it. Its the same for Star Wars, without the detailed and diverse worlds then I think it wouldnt work. You are able to escape and suspend your disbelief.

IMO

Madness is rare in individuals--but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule - Nietzsche

it really depends on what kind of film you have watched. If you generally watch fantasy films, action films, then probably yes you will get that. If you watch a more provoking film, that challenges concepts of ideology then you will get a completely different response.

Some films will purposely distance you from the film, forcing you to not escape into the film, and to reflect on what you have seen.

Frodo's character is classically identifiable. His problems are born from courage, fear, isolation, individuality, and his passage to becoming an adult. Everyone can identify with this, allowing an easy passage for viewers to fall into his character.

LOTR has always had criticism from critics because it simply does not posess the depth of many other literature. I personally see the book as an early form of entertainment, it in no way has the qualities of his peers. Or at least I could argue that it has spawned a generation of popular entertainment films like star wars (the comparisons run deeply). The book was a first, unique, and is beautifully written, but is far from challenging (apart from the length of it!)

Madness is rare in individuals--but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule - Nietzsche